- Joined
- 28 October 2008
- Posts
- 8,609
- Reactions
- 39
Ben Oquist was deeply involved in the action today,
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...er-makes-tony-abbott-wait-20140710-3bpq7.html
Ben Oquist was deeply involved in the action today,Also of interest, Ben Oquist is involved with Clive Palmer and PUP.
He drew around him his little band of senators, instructing them on their duty. Glenn Lazarus, Jacqui Lambie, Dio Wang. And his outrider, Ricky Muir.
He cocked an ear towards Ben Oquist, once a power within the Australian Greens and now a strategy director at the Australia Institute think tank and, seated at Clive's left hand, an unlikely but well-informed well of advice on how to drive the Senate mad.
It's a sound strategy but the politics is such that its foundation is the repeal of the carbon tax.The Govt will just chip away geting bills through one at a time. They will get most of what they want through before the end of their first term. Once they are about six months out from the next election they can threaten to go to a DD on anything they are being obstructed on. I don't see the cross benchers risking an early end to their pariamentary career and being close to having to go to the polls the govt doesn't have anything to lose by going a few months early.
It's a sound strategy but the politics is such that its foundation is the repeal of the carbon tax.
With the political friends Clive Palmer and at least two of his flock of 4 are keeping (Jacqui Lambie and Ricky Muir), PUP's ultimate genuineness in repeal this tax is very questionable in my view.
I hope you're right but between Labor and Green tentacles penetrating PUP and Clive Palmer and Tony Abbott falling out in 2012, it may run deeper than that.I am sure that windbag Palmer will eventually pass it as it cost him $6 million last year....He is just showing his strong arm tactics and is like a cat playing with a mouse.......He is getting a lot of publicity from it all and has left the Greens in the back ground.......Palmer has taken over the limelight.
Sarah Ferguson did a very good job of persisting against Mr Palmer's obfuscation, to the point where he walked out on her. The contrast with the subsequent interview with Greg Hunt was marked, the latter being polite and remarkably restrained in his comments.On matters Clive, he's walked out during an interview with Sarah Ferguson for the ABC's 7:30 program.
With the carbon tax repeal where it is, there hopefully won't be any loose cannon from the Libs in response.
Isn't it ironic Clive's associated with something called Media Circus.Sarah Ferguson did a very good job of persisting against Mr Palmer's obfuscation, to the point where he walked out on her. The contrast with the subsequent interview with Greg Hunt was marked, the latter being polite and remarkably restrained in his comments.
Oquist, the former chief of staff to Greens leaders Bob Brown and Christine Milne, helped engineer events yesterday that led Clive Palmer to keep the carbon tax *despite a public vow to repeal it.
Another player is John Clements, a former adviser to independent Tony Windsor and a key negotiator in the dispute over how to ensure consumers get the savings if the tax is scrapped.
The government suspects Oquist of trying to kill off the carbon tax repeal one step at a time. He has been advising Palmer in meetings, copied on emails and was in the background at yesterday’s press conference. “Ben’s endgame is clear,” says one source.
Oquist, who left the Greens after the last election and is now the Strategy Director at The Australia Institute, says yesterday’s political decisions were not his work.
Why does Tony Abbott really want to kill the price on Carbon ?
Tony Abbott used to tell us that he would not lead a government “depending upon dodgy deals … or wayward independents”.
“There is no point in basing government on dishonest deals behind closed doors,” he said.
Thursday when the Senate leader, Eric Abetz, the environment minister, Greg Hunt, manager of government business in the Senate, Mitch Fifield, and their advisers were hammering out the fate of the carbon tax repeal bills with Clive Palmer, his senators and the other crossbenchers in a corridor with a posse of journalists watching.
But the whole chaotic day would have been less embarrassing if:
• the prime minister had not already done a pre-emptive media conference hailing the imminent economic unburdening of the nation from the “axing” of the tax.
• the government had not itself forced through a “gag” motion, which then robbed it of the chance to let the debate continue while the amendment was negotiated.
• the prime minister had not told voters before the election that they were choosing between the “strong Coalition team” and “more of the same chaos and confusion under Labor”.
• if he hadn’t been so derisive of the Labor’s governments negotiations with minor parties.
The Abbott government has failed in a bid to delay the parliamentary tabling of its changes to financial advice reforms, with Labor succeeding in a series of procedural manoeuvres that bring the upper house a step closer to striking down the measures.
The regulation altering elements of Labor’s Future of Financial Advice (Fofa) reforms was registered to begin on 1 July, but the government was entitled to wait until Tuesday next week to formally table it in the Senate.
Opponents of the changes wanted the regulation tabled as soon as possible because the Senate could then vote to disallow it. There is adequate support among senators for striking down the measures amid concerns about the watering down of protections for consumers receiving financial advice.
It has clearly had an effect on CO2 emissions. Electricity suppliers are using less coal and more gas/hydro/wind/solar power
The most relevant bit of the above article.This government is in or running complete chaos
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...tts-turn-to-do-dodgy-deals-with-minor-parties
Yes, the government was ambushed by yet another Palmer drama – a last-minute, hastily revised amendment to its carbon tax repeal bills that turned out to be unconstitutional on the advice of the clerk of the Senate.
The transcript of last night's interview is now available.Isn't it ironic Clive's associated with something called Media Circus.
Clive's interview helped fill in some of the gaps as to what happened. He claimed the government's approach was pass the carbon tax and move his amendment later as it had to pass through the reps which he baulked at.
It couldn't happen that way though as a consequence of advice from the clerk. Interestingly in the interview that followed, Greg Hunt didn't mention this aspect either. The Libs I'd suggest are going soft on Clive at the moment in the hope the carbon tax repeal passes next week.
I also suggest he's not endearing himself to other parts of the business community with his commentary, either about them or China.
He was clearly not a happy camper as he walked out.
SARAH FERGUSON: Having a look at your actual amendment, to be clear about it - who are you saying, rather - who are you saying it should apply to?
CLIVE PALMER: Well what we're saying in essence is that any generators of gas or electricity in the country that have in their price structure a certain component for carbon, that needs to be reduced and that saving needs to be passed on to - down the line to consumers.
SARAH FERGUSON: Now there is some confusion around tonight because people who've looked at your amendment think that it goes much further than that, that it applies to any business that is - that has had costs incurred through the carbon tax. Is that what you intended: for it to cover any business?
CLIVE PALMER: Well I think it's pretty clear what it covers. There's a definition of an electricity producer and a natural gas producer and it covers anyone that generates or deals with that commodity. It doesn't cover anyone else.
SARAH FERGUSON: So it doesn't cover the airlines, it doesn't cover the supermarkets or anybody else who has carbon tax-associated costs?
CLIVE PALMER: Well, in a reality when - if the cost structure comes down, market forces will bring their costs down by competition. We know that and that's a good and healthy thing. I mean, if Qantas doesn't want to bring down its savings and pass that on to its consumers, well, one of its competitors will and they'll have to bring their prices down to compete.
SARAH FERGUSON: You're not saying that your amendment actually includes those other companies within it?
CLIVE PALMER: No. I don't think it does, actually. But what I am saying is that in the case of electricity and gas producers, they're virtually in a monopoly situation with many of our generators held by state governments. They've got no freedom of choice and there's not a real market. We've seen $45 billion spent in the electricity market, for example. The demand for electricity's come down, the prices have gone up. So, you know, they've got nowhere to go and we're there to help them.
On matters Clive, he's walked out during an interview with Sarah Ferguson for the ABC's 7:30 program.
With the carbon tax repeal where it is, there hopefully won't be any loose cannon from the Libs in response.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?